It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Population Control is Logical and Needed

page: 1
6
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 02:49 PM
I'm someone who believes in freedom, who doesn't like ID cards and being forced to hand over my biometrics and yet i can see that population control will be needed eventually.

During a biology class when i was only 12 a graph was shown to me. It showed the population of foxes and rabbits in a certain area. When the rabbit population went up, the fox population went up, when the rabbit population pummeted due to predation, the fox population plummeted within a few months. This is the basic model of food and population.

It takes a certain amount of ladn area to support a human life, lets assume we only go along with the base needs and nothing fancy, human beings still require a certain area to grow food, vegan or meat eater it doesn't matter. We need a certain amount of clean water and power production. A human being will require land space to live.

The earth only has so much land space, we also need to leave some alone to allow natural cycles to continue. Without these natural cycles the ecosystem would die and start all over once we were gone. So it's a simple fact that the earth can only support a certain amount of people and remain viable for human life.

Again i'll state it clearly, each individual human requires land area to live for food and other things, the earth has only so much land area, therefore the earth can mathmatically only support a certain size of human population before we reach a tipping point where we start starving just like the foxes in the graph.

If such an argument is put forward you are usually called a nazi or some other horrible label, however this is simple facts, simple logic and quite correct. Whilst i don't think we've reached our maximum population, it is a situation that needs to be addresses before we do. If we don't address it then we'll see even more people starving to death as we realise a balance is needed and achieve an eqaulibrium.

Either we achieve an eqaulibrium we make ourselves or it happens naturally and people starve to death.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:05 PM
I totally agree with you on this one, if u look at the human graph it shows a massive boom in the 20th century.......the question is when is the fall going to come? and more to the point how? (like you said, either naturally or with human intervention)

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:39 PM
Look not to say it isn't needed because its getting a little bad however.
Killing people off or stopping people having children is a half assed selfish lazy way to go about it.We should be using more resources to find other planets and be able to go to them and inhabit them.Oh but wait someone needs to pay off there suv first thats right thats more important.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by Being_From_Earth]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:47 PM

Maybe i should have mentioned this originally, i am not advocating the killing of anyone, whilst i think we need to control population, i don't think killing anyone is correct to achieve this goal. to promote such a thing would end in another holocaust and that isn't something i could ever agree with.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 03:51 PM

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:16 PM
I agree with you that "freezing" the graph in sort of saturation line on this planet would be needed or even is needed. How is the big question. Ancient Greeks sent colonists, maybe we will copy this behavior? In the end it will be much more cost-effective then starting wars, using chemicals or even simply trying to enforce regulation. I can very easily imagine "child coupons" being traded for money in the not-so-distant future.
Better for us to go and pollute Mars too.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:31 PM
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Hmmm, control the population, but don't kill anyone.
No eugenics here.
So what exactly should we do to confront this issue head on?
Time is apparently of the essence.
Where should we start?
Birth control put into the food we send as foreign aid?
Stop vaccinating children in third world countries?
Stop housing lifetime criminals and just off them?
Start a tax on the number of children a couple can have?
Where do you start?
Who do you target?
How do you justify the actions, and make people believe you are doing it for the good of the planet as a whole?
You want to make life better for those of us still here?
Stop clear cutting the rain forest to feed cattle. Stop feeding the cattle grain that could be feed to humans. Solution number one.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 04:55 PM

Originally posted by RubyGloom
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Hmmm, control the population, but don't kill anyone.
No eugenics here.

Actually no, i wasn't talking eugenics because that would involve only allowing certain people who we believe to be genetically superior to have children. Please tell me where i even hinted at supporting eugenics? Don't twist what i was saying please.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
So what exactly should we do to confront this issue head on?

Well that's where it gets upsetting for those of us who believe in freedom. Whilt i whole heartedly love freedom i'm afraid i have to stick with the logical arguement, there is only a certain amount of land area humans can cultivate and support themselves from. Therefore the planet can only sustain a certain number of people, therefore a control on population is needed.

I hate to suggest it i truly do, but yes a control on how many children a couple can have is the start. I don't beleive in forcing abortions like the chinese, but extra taxation would be a start.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Time is apparently of the essence.

Well ithink we have a while yet, but getting such things in place takes years ina free society simply because of the fear people would have over such a thing. The idea that we'd be activating a program that is similar to an oppressive governmet is hardly attractive. However again it's the truth that the planet can only support a certain population size of human beings, or are you denying that?

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Birth control put into the food we send as foreign aid?

That would be illegal so no. I'm talking of countries regulating themselves not us oppressing another country. I'm talking a worlwide agreement via diplomacy.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Stop vaccinating children in third world countries?

Again you're thinking i'm talking eugenics, i am very far away from that arguement as i'm not defining who should and shouldn't breed. I'm not basing this on genetic profiles at all.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Stop housing lifetime criminals and just off them?

I'm fully against the death penalty.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Start a tax on the number of children a couple can have?

A good start.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
How do you justify the actions, and make people believe you are doing it for the good of the planet as a whole?

Well that's difficult but the world has been slowly convince of not using CFC's and curbing their carbon emissions, i am sure a large campaign could do the same here.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
You want to make life better for those of us still here?

Nope, i want to make sure that we don't overpopulate the planet, resulting in massive starvation of the human race and billions of death because of it.

Originally posted by RubyGloom
Stop clear cutting the rain forest to feed cattle. Stop feeding the cattle grain that could be feed to humans. Solution number one.

Ahh hang on, we are clear cutting rainforest to support the growing need of the human race, so doesn't that prove my arguement? A control on the population size would reduce the need for such actions and promote biodiversity. I agree with not feeding cattle grain, in my humble opinion we should stop farming certain animals en masse. Chickens use less resources to farm and are healthier.

[edit on 6-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

[edit on 6-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:01 PM
Population control my arse! What is it going to matter to you in 50-100 years when your 6 feet under?
Let alone in a few hundred thousand years when the sun decides to puke out on us. Or maybe sooner like 2012 like some people insist on.
Makes no difference to me.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:06 PM

Well it matters to me because i'm not thinking of myself, i'm worried about the billions of human beings who will starve to death due to us not having enough food to sustain a massive population, i'd rather avoid a mass die off of the human race. Also i'd rather avoid growing our population to a point where the planets biodiversity is hit so hard we lose more species then we already have and end up doing serious damage that takes hundreds maybe thousands of years and very harsh measures to repair.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Well it matters to me because i'm not thinking of myself, i'm worried about the billions of human beings who will starve to death due to us not having enough food to sustain a massive population, i'd rather avoid a mass die off of the human race. Also i'd rather avoid growing our population to a point where the planets biodiversity is hit so hard we lose more species then we already have and end up doing serious damage that takes hundreds maybe thousands of years and very harsh measures to repair.

Dude, what are you going to do to save everyone from Nibiru?
I crack my self up. But seriously if you can't control your government how do you think you can control population growth when all you see is sex on TV?

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by 38181

Dude, what are you going to do to save everyone from Nibiru?
I crack my self up. But seriously if you can't control your government how do you think you can control population growth when all you see is sex on TV?

Lol erm think i'll skip over the idea of Nibiru until someoen can prove it to me. Well we can control government, but it takes a very serious effort, i would rather try and fail then not try at all.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:29 PM
Actually all industrialised nations seem to settle in at about 1.6 children per couple. Thats actually fewer people when all is said and done. Estimates at the current rate of nations moving forward in technology will after a large bloat (11bn) settle back in a few generations to 9 billion people. You may ask then why is the U.S. still increasing in population? We have alot of rural area and a good many farm families still and dont forget a large number of illegal immigrants (200,000+ annually).

ps I blame immigrants in no way on economic woes or anything else for that matter.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Well it matters to me because i'm not thinking of myself, i'm worried about the billions of human beings who will starve to death due to us not having enough food to sustain a massive population, i'd rather avoid a mass die off of the human race.

Many believe that a mass die-off cannot be stopped. Out entire industrial society depends on oil, not only for transportation but for food production, from fertilizer to pesticides to mechanical labor. If you do the simple math of exponential growth, its obvious that our current population cannot be sustained, even at a lowered standard of living, with the dwindling resources we control.

Although it is politically incorrect to say it, lots of people are going to have to die one way or another. The question then becomes do you try to control who dies, and if so, who decides? That is always going to be the question. Who decides who dies. If we do not answer that question and all tjhe other questions that spring from it, nature, circumstance, and the most violent of human instincts will surely decide for us...

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
reply to post by Ambient Sound

Well it such a situation you describe, basically the collapse of society, the physically fit, well prepared and mentally devious will survive. That is soemthing i'd rather avoid as it doesn't tend to spark the most humane of societies. I'd prefer diplomatic effort, democratic decision and careful informed debate.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:41 PM

I said this in an earlier post, but with the Peak Oil concern also in play we will reach equilibrium much faster than expected. We have millions of people living in skyscrapers and on Manhattan Island where there is absolutely no farm land. If there is a shortage of oil there will also be a shortage of food in all of these areas specifically made habitable because of Peak Oil. However, if you have every been in the west you will know all of the land that stretches on and on and on for hundreds if not thousands of miles. Much of this is not farmable but you begin to see how vast the earth is while driving through it.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:41 PM

I wasn't implying you hinted at it..
Hence why I stated
"NO EUGENICS HERE"
Please don't twist what IAM saying.
It is my belief with the current economical state of most parts of the world, that most people are already choosing to have fewer or no children.
There is an increase in the number of same sex relationships. (yes some of those raise children, but far less if than if they were in a heterosexual relationship.)

There is an increase in many diseases linked to the way we live in the western world, and I think if given just a few more years, the rates of birth versus death many soon equal out.

I agree with you about the chickens issue..however..don't let PETA know I said that.

A tax on the number of children, may force potential parents to reconsider options..or it may not.
You would need to look at the statistics of married couples with planned pregnancies, over those who are single, and reckless and have unplanned pregnancies.
In a world where "SEX sells"....that is a difficult thing to contain. For those with unplanned pregnancies, would the alternative be to abort? Or place for adoption if the tax could not be paid? Face jail time for not paying?
Many variables to that.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:43 PM

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by Ambient Sound

Well it such a situation you describe, basically the collapse of society, the physically fit, well prepared and mentally devious will survive. That is soemthing i'd rather avoid as it doesn't tend to spark the most humane of societies. I'd prefer diplomatic effort, democratic decision and careful informed debate.

I also think it should begin completely voluntarily with incentives, tax or otherwise to become infertile.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:50 PM
Population control is definitely needed.

But it's the way the government is trying to accomplish this that's wrong.

Why not just make like china, and allow only one child per family, instead of poisoning water and other experiments that sterilize people and what not.

Sterilization techniques should be practiced in Africa I think, those people can't feed themselves yet they push out 10 kids.

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 05:57 PM

Originally posted by The Soldier Of Darkness
Population control is definitely needed.

But it's the way the government is trying to accomplish this that's wrong.

Why not just make like china, and allow only one child per family, instead of poisoning water and other experiments that sterilize people and what not.

The problem is if you say such a thing, even show it's what is correct in regards to saving the human race from immense suffering, the people will revolt and label you a terrible person. The government would be out over night if they even hinted at it, this is why it's an issue that is rarely addressed. Whens the last time you heard a prominent politician voice such a thing publicly?

Originally posted by The Soldier Of Darkness
Sterilization techniques should be practiced in Africa I think, those people can't feed themselves yet they push out 10 kids.

That's a pretty ignorant statement, i made an entire thread on how the catholic church should encourage the use of contraception in Africa. You cannot and should not force sterilization, it goes against the very idea of freedom in every respect and would make us little better than nazis.

6